Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

885 profile views

Risingtide's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. I think you're right. I believe I used paradigm incorrectly. I thought paradigm meant things as they truly are. is there a word that pertains to a universal truth? Another question are Richard Van Wagoner and Todd Compton generally considered as responsible historians of polygamy in LDS history by Latter Day Saints who seek to understand the practice.
  2. Wouldn't God know the true paradigm"? I think so. How do we know a paradigm is true? We see through a glass darkly, and walk by faith, and trust personal conformation of the Spirit, but don't see the whole.
  3. You've given me a lot to unpack, but I'll try to address some of it. I agree, it's not wise to defer to the personal conscience of psychopaths. It's not always wise to defer to the healthy in mind. There are millions of God fearing persons with varying beliefs. Beliefs that are in conflict with one another. My guess is that most of those persons believe they are following the ultimate authority. I am not bound by the belief of others. They have the right to follow their conscience, as I do mine. I don't believe that is a dodge. I agree, our conscience is largely formed by the culture around us along with our experience and education, with some biology in the mix. So we develop a conscience from these factors. This doesn't guarantee we arrive at the true paradigm. We get along as best we can, hopefully with some level of humility and acceptance of differences. I wish you a happy Easter.
  4. This authority of personal opinion is binding on no one but myself. In your belief system do people have authority of personal conscience?
  5. I was asked my opinion. I've given it. Do I have the authority to have my own opinion? I think so.
  6. Can you not see how that would anger those outside the faith? What if that was applied to your marriage? Your wife is courted by someone of a different faith that doesn't accept the validity of your sealing/marriage. If she is persuaded and leaves your home to be another's wife. Would you be upset?
  7. No authority. I just answered the question. That's what we do here, right?
  8. That would take some time to work out. I'll give you some of what I've got. The practice would respect existing marriages. This would prohibit polyandry. It would limit the amount of sealings. I think three would be the very maximum. Even then it would cheat the children of the time with fathers and the financial resources that children of monogamous families are blessed with. There would be clearly written and enforced rules of behavior regarding the practice, and these laws would be available for all to read. Scripture wouldn't be published to obfuscate polygamious doctrine. Before a second wife would be taken into the marriage the first wife would wish for the addition of another wife. I don't believe the LDS practice of polygamy aided in the goal of raising righteous seed. I believe the opposite is more likely. I think the Church would have attracted more righteous persons or persons seeking a righteous life into the faith without polygamy, and those children would have been raised in better circumstances.
  9. Thanks Calm, I went into the investigation to quiet fears that would spring up in me about JS & BY. Maybe some day I'll be able to delve into the history of the Church's practice of polygamy and see it in a new light and find peace in it. I hope so. Right now it seems impossible for me.
  10. OK, I don't like being a critic of the Church. I think I need to lay this subject aside for a while. I've feel blessed to have been a member of the Church. I love the members of my ward, and greatly respect the leaders both local and general. I don't want to give up the good influence the Church has given me. I feel the road I'm on threatens something that's been quite precious to me.
  11. Doesn't the passage deny the practice of polygamy after Joseph Smith had already entered into it even if it was "only" one polygamous wife? And had he not claimed to have received heavenly revelation to practice polygamy before the publication?
  12. I think wide range is an understatement. Using scripture to deceive is beyond my level of tolerance. The 1835 edition of D&C section 101 disturbs me. " Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman should have but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." I know this was written by Oliver Cowdrey, and it doesn't pretend to be revelation, yet many historians feel there is ample evidence Joseph Smith knew it would be included in the book. I have a hard time squaring this. It is so clearly meant to deceive. This should never happen with scripture.
  13. I don't believe the blame if any exists is with a laxity on God's part.
  • Create New...